IrcLog2009 02 19

17:16:22  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is no longer marked as being away 
17:25:49  *      stevenknight (n=[stevenkn@67.218.109.115](mailto:stevenkn@67.218.109.115)) has joined #scons 
17:26:06  <stevenknight> hey nait 
17:27:16  <stevenknight> hey [GregNoel](GregNoel) 
17:29:29  <nait> Unfortunately, I needed to get a ride home today, so I'm going to miss the bug party.  I'll try to be around at 8:30 for discussions about fixers and 2.0 
17:30:08  <stevenknight> okay 
17:30:19  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm here... 
17:30:23  <stevenknight> i may not be able to connect then 
17:30:31  <stevenknight> looks like a lot going on this evening... 
17:31:20  <stevenknight> hi greg 
17:31:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Fair warning: I seem to have caught the bug that the kids have been passing around, so I'm a bit under the weather and liable to be slow tonight. 
17:31:32  <stevenknight> okay 
17:31:37  <stevenknight> shall we get started then? 
17:31:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, Steven... and Nate? 
17:31:54  <stevenknight> nait's here for now but has to leave 
17:32:09  <stevenknight> no sign of Brandon or Bill 
17:32:13  <stevenknight> and Gary's still on vacation 
17:32:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     So a bit on the thin side. 
17:32:44  <stevenknight> yeah 
17:32:58  <stevenknight> but we can still do what we can 
17:33:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yup 
17:33:06  <stevenknight> and defer as necessary 
17:33:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yup 
17:33:05  <nait> Yeah, sorry.  I don't have a car today, so I'm at the whim of my co-worker. 
17:33:20  <stevenknight> nait: understood, been there myself 
17:33:38  <stevenknight> so where did we leave off? 
17:33:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I think 2288 is next; we hadn't finished with it. 
17:33:49  <stevenknight> right 
17:34:10  <stevenknight> oh, I thought we agreed right before the end to defer 2288 to next week 
17:34:12  <stevenknight> and close 2289 
17:34:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I thought we said "next time" but I'm willing to bypass it. 
17:34:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'll ask for more info 
17:34:50  <stevenknight> right, meant "next time" 
17:34:57  <stevenknight> okay, done 
17:35:22  <stevenknight> 2303:  research, me? 
17:35:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2303, I seem to be collecting the symlink issues 
17:35:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     but you're welcome to research it {;-} 
17:35:41  <stevenknight> er, I meant, research, gregnoel? 
17:35:44  <stevenknight> :-) 
17:35:57  <stevenknight> sorry, it's this frog in my throat... :-) 
17:36:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     It can't be worse than mine. 
17:36:34  <stevenknight> if you have other symlink issues then it probably does make more sense with you 
17:36:55  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     This isn't the same as the other issues, which are related to making a symlink a first-class node type 
17:37:15  <stevenknight> seems like it'd be in the same ballpark, though 
17:37:32  <stevenknight> if the FS.* hierarchy is going to understand symlinks anyway 
17:37:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll research it, but I suspect I'll be tossing it back. 
17:37:45  <stevenknight> i'm okay with it being your call, though 
17:37:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:37:52  <stevenknight> that's fine 
17:37:53  <stevenknight> done 
17:37:59  <stevenknight> 2304:  research, me? 
17:38:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, but you've got to start catching up on those (as do I with mine) 
17:38:43  <stevenknight> yep, i agree 
17:39:04  <stevenknight> i'm going to try to make it a priority after landing vs_revamp on the trunk 
17:39:20  <stevenknight> i have to remember that the idea isn't necessarily to solve them all 
17:39:28  <stevenknight> but at least characterize them enough to slot them elsewhere... 
17:39:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2306, sigh, I'll come up with a proposal 
17:39:41  <stevenknight> anyway 
17:39:45  <stevenknight> 2304:  research, sgk 
17:39:46  <stevenknight> done 
17:39:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yes, exactly 
17:39:51  <stevenknight> 2306:  research, gregnoel 
17:39:58  <stevenknight> done 
17:39:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:40:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2309, as you request 
17:40:27  <stevenknight> 2309:  1.3, p2, sk, +vs_revamp 
17:40:28  <stevenknight> done 
17:40:51  <stevenknight> 2311 
17:41:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     the only one with a consensus... 
17:41:12  <stevenknight> to do this one right has larger implications about making the Builder (or action) configurable 
17:41:47  <stevenknight> 2.x p2 feels right 
17:42:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'd think it would always be rebuilt if a source changes; when would it not? 
17:42:03  <stevenknight> are we still okay leaving 2.x issues as TBD / future draft pick? 
17:42:31  <stevenknight> trivial case:  your target is built by just concatenating the sources 
17:42:33  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     not 2.x p2; too soon in the future 
17:42:40  <stevenknight> you don't care about the name change then 
17:42:57  <stevenknight> but you could argue that we should go ahead and rebuild anyway 
17:43:19  <stevenknight> on the theory that it's generally safer, and we don't need the extra complexity for the corner case 
17:43:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, you do; the source could have different contents; that's the bug here. 
17:43:27  <stevenknight> no, the source has the same contents 
17:43:37  <stevenknight> if the contents are different, then the MD5 checksum difference triggers a rebuild 
17:43:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Not what the bug said, as I recall. 
17:44:25  <stevenknight> checking now;... 
17:44:27  <stevenknight> but I doubt it 
17:45:19  <stevenknight> ouch, you're right 
17:45:20  <stevenknight> as usual 
17:45:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     {;-} 
17:45:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     The bug is probably that it's checking the _old_ source, rather than the new one. 
17:47:40  <stevenknight> ah, yes 
17:47:48  <stevenknight> very likely 
17:47:53  <stevenknight> okay, give it to me 
17:47:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:49:01  <stevenknight> 2312:  2.x p3 managan 
17:48:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2312, I agree. 
17:49:02  <stevenknight> done 
17:49:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2311, I wish I had some of those drugs right now 
17:49:41  <stevenknight> 2313:  defer to next time and hope someone else comes up with a better idea for tackling packaging issues? 
17:50:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2312, I'm inclined to close it as invalid: we only support one package per run right now 
17:50:08  <stevenknight> ah 
17:50:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     or wontfix 
17:50:25  <stevenknight> how about just turn it into a feature request, then? 
17:50:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     feature request, hmmm, yeah, makes sense 
17:50:57  <stevenknight> a packaging system that can't let you build more than one at a time seems pretty limited 
17:51:22  <stevenknight> so...  feature request, 3.x p3? 
17:51:38  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yeah, sounds right. 
17:51:39  <stevenknight> and an invitation to scratch the itch sooner if he wants to contribute a patch 
17:51:47  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good point 
17:52:24  <stevenknight> done 
17:52:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2338, 2.1 p4 is fine 
17:52:45  <stevenknight> done 
17:52:46  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2339, ditto 
17:52:50  <stevenknight> done 
17:52:52  <stevenknight> gregnoel on both? 
17:53:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hmmm... 
17:53:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Nate, you still here? 
17:54:07  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Nate has been working with me on the fixers; this might be in his ballpark 
17:54:13  <stevenknight> that sounds good 
17:54:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Not to mention I suspect I'll be zoned out when 2.0 is out after supervising all those fixers. 
17:54:25  <stevenknight> how about putting his name on and you guys can negotiate if that's not okay with him 
17:54:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, I'll do that. 
17:55:07  <stevenknight> right re: zoned out 
17:55:34  <stevenknight> okay, 2338+2339:  2.1 p4 Nate 
17:55:35  <stevenknight> done 
17:55:41  <stevenknight> 2346:  consensus invalid 
17:55:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2346, done 
17:56:15  <stevenknight> 2347:  ... 
17:56:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2347, sk to follow up? 
17:56:23  <stevenknight> 2.x p3 sk 
17:56:30  <stevenknight> no 
17:56:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:56:32  <stevenknight> research p3 sk 
17:56:37  <stevenknight> so i'll follow up sooner 
17:56:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     better; I agree 
17:56:56  <stevenknight> done 
17:57:08  <stevenknight> 2349:  anytime p4 gregnoel? 
17:57:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2349, I guess that's what I get... 
17:57:22  <stevenknight> :-) 
17:57:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, but make it p2 
17:57:42  <stevenknight> okay 
17:57:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     get it out of the way 
17:57:52  <stevenknight> good point 
17:57:53  <stevenknight> done 
17:57:57  <stevenknight> on to 2004h2? 
17:58:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Wow, you updated the spreadsheet that quickly; I can't even navigate today... 
17:58:54  <stevenknight> small advantage of the laptop, the touchpad keeps the fingers closer to home row... 
17:59:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     No quorum for schedule items, so yeah, let's look at a few from 2004 
17:59:37  <stevenknight> 851:  too old to mess with, invalid (or worksforme) 
18:00:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     worksforme worksforme 
18:00:07  <stevenknight> :-) 
18:00:11  <stevenknight> done 
18:00:14  <stevenknight> 860:  already closed 
18:00:16  <stevenknight> 863: 
18:00:34  <stevenknight> agree w/your suggestion of dup'ing these 
18:00:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, I'll do it 
18:00:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     not tonight, though.. 
18:01:01  <stevenknight> the survivor should be p2 so it stays near top of list, i think 
18:01:05  <stevenknight> agreed re: not tonight 
18:01:24  <stevenknight> 914:  research 
18:01:27  <stevenknight> maybe me 
18:01:37  <stevenknight> fresh eyes would help 
18:01:49  <stevenknight> but I don't know if anyone else has an itch to scratch re: collecting test results 
18:02:00  <stevenknight> it's been somewhat superceded by going with Buildbot 
18:02:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     somewhat 
18:03:04  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Buildbot is nice, but I find it limiting; I've wanted to fiddle with it, but I don't have the most-recent stuff 
18:02:39  <stevenknight> yeah, research sk is the right call here 
18:03:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     914, research is good; close it if it's no help any more 
18:03:32  <stevenknight> we should chat about Buildbot plans some other time (when you're more up to it) 
18:03:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     concur 
18:03:42  <stevenknight> we're probably going to be doing some buildbot work for the day job 
18:03:59  <stevenknight> would be nice to do things that benefit us too 
18:04:11  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     true 
18:04:01  <stevenknight> anyway 
18:04:13  <stevenknight> 923:  1.3 p3 sk +vs_revamp 
18:04:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     923, done 
18:04:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     and don't forget the new Python support systems; they could run buildbots 
18:04:59  <stevenknight> snakebite or whatever it's called? 
18:05:08  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     yeah, that's it. 
18:05:24  <stevenknight> yeah, definitely worth keeping in mind 
18:05:38  <stevenknight> especially if it helps with Windows and non-POSIXy platforms 
18:05:44  <stevenknight> 924:  already closed 
18:05:57  <stevenknight> 939:  already closed 
18:06:06  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     947, needs to be someone with a DOS box 
18:06:12  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Maybe Gary? 
18:06:34  <stevenknight> is it high enough priority? 
18:06:40  <stevenknight> since his time is limited.. 
18:06:54  <stevenknight> sure 
18:06:58  <stevenknight> let's assign to gary 
18:07:12  <stevenknight> and invite negotiation if he wants to throw it back 
18:07:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good; milestone and priority? 
18:07:31  <stevenknight> anytime, p2? 
18:07:35  <stevenknight> p2 to get it out of the way 
18:07:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done {;-} 
18:08:01  <stevenknight> done 
18:08:13  <stevenknight> 960:  3.x p[34]? 
18:08:19  <stevenknight> do we want a separate doc issue, too? 
18:08:30  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I like your comment; p4 it is. 
18:08:39  <stevenknight> okay 
18:09:01  <stevenknight> done 
18:09:15  <stevenknight> 961:  okay with 2.x p3? 
18:09:25  <stevenknight> 3.x feels too far out for some useful functionality 
18:09:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yeah, you make a good point in your comment.  How about 2.x p4? 
18:09:58  <stevenknight> done 
18:10:24  <stevenknight> 977:  research?  who? 
18:10:40  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     977, the wiki page is out, but few review comments...  (hint, hint) 
18:11:04  <stevenknight> fair point 
18:11:14  <stevenknight> give 977 to me, then 
18:11:32  <stevenknight> so i'll have a reminder to comment if i haven't done so by the time I try to clear my research pile 
18:11:47  <stevenknight> 977:  research, sk 
18:11:48  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK; this one is an old issue, mind, so it may be moot by now 
18:11:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:11:55  <stevenknight> right 
18:11:59  <stevenknight> 982:  already closed 
18:12:24  <stevenknight> 988:  consensus invalid 
18:12:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:12:46  <stevenknight> 993:  1.3 p2 sk, +vs_revamp 
18:12:56  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:13:13  <stevenknight> 1003:  consensus invalid 
18:13:13  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1003, invalid 
18:13:18  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:13:33  <stevenknight> 1012:  consensus 3.x p3 
18:14:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1012, yes, with your ammendment 
18:14:21  <stevenknight> 1017:  consensus invalid 
18:14:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     1017, invalid 
18:14:42  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:14:46  <stevenknight> 1019:  2.x p3 sk? 
18:15:07  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) is still reading the comment 
18:15:45  <stevenknight> np 
18:16:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, your funeral; done 
18:16:16  <stevenknight> :-) 
18:16:43  <stevenknight> 1033:  3.x, p[your call], +TaskmasterNG 
18:16:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
18:17:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     (I think I'll make it p2 to keep it above the herd) 
18:17:41  <stevenknight> sounds good 
18:17:48  <stevenknight> and we're just coming to the exit for my stop 
18:17:53  <stevenknight> excellent work tonight 
18:18:03  <stevenknight> many thanks, especially given how you're feeling 
18:18:20  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     good timing; and I'm starting to sweat, so maybe the fever is breaking. 
18:18:28  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Good time to quit 
18:18:31  <stevenknight> yep 
18:18:39  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, cul, and thanks. 
18:18:45  <stevenknight> and you 
18:18:46  <stevenknight> later 
18:18:50  *      stevenknight has quit ("Leaving") 
21:12:03  *      [GregNoel](GregNoel) has been marked as being away